Names of CJI, Duration, from where, which HC
Books written by Judiciary
Landmark Judgments delivered, when, which case
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
In this landmark judgment by the full bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held that fundamental rights provided by Articles of Constitution are not silos in nature but are connected with one another.
The bench consisted of below judges, including the Hon’ble CJI.
As such it was held that it is declared that the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 22 of 1969 is invalid and the action taken or deemed to be taken in exercise of the powers under the Act is declared unauthorised.
Citation: 1970 AIR 564, 1970 SCR (3) 530
Indiakanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/513801/
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Improperly framed affidavits are held to be not acceptable by Supreme court per CPC and relevant Supreme Court Rules.
From Para 51, 52 and 53,
Apart from the aforesaid, in the writ petition which was filed on 21st January, 2006, there is no mention of the fact that the petitioner gave a statement under section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the investigation arising out of FIR lodged on 30th December, 2005. From the records of the case it appears the petitioner gave 161 statement on 13th January, 2006. In the writ petition there is a complete suppression of the aforesaid fact. A statement under Section 161 is certainly a material fact in a police investigation in connection with an FIR. The investigation is to find out the genuineness of those very documents on the basis of which the writ petition was moved. In that factual context, total suppression in the writ petition of the fact that the petitioner gave a 161 statement in that investigation is, in our judgment, suppression of a very material fact.
It is, therefore, clear that writ petition is frivolous and is speculative in character. This Court is of the opinion that the so called legal questions on tapping of telephone cannot be gone into on the basis of a petition which is so weak in its foundation.
Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts. Courts held that such litigants have come with “unclean hands” and are not entitled to be heard on the merits of their case.
From Para 58,
It is one of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence that litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings and especially when it contains a prayer for injunction. A prayer for injunction, which is an equitable remedy, must be governed by principles of ‘uberrima fide’.
From Para 62,
Following these principles, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the instant writ petition is an attempt by the petitioner to mislead the Court on the basis of frivolous allegations and by suppression of material facts as pointed out and discussed above.
From Para 65,
This court wants to make one thing clear i.e. perfunctory and slipshod affidavits which are not consistent either with Order XIX Rule 3 of the CPC or with Order XI Rules 5 and 13 of the Supreme Court Rules should not be entertained by this Court.
In this judgment from Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it was held that “If a woman living separate from her husband had already filed a suit claiming maintenance and after adjudication maintenance has been determined by a competent court either in Civil Suit or by Court of MM in an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. she does not have a right to claim additional maintenance under the Act. The Court of MM under the Act has power to grant maintenance and monetary reliefs on an interim basis in a fast track manner only in those cases where woman has not exercised her right of claiming maintenance either under Civil Court or under Section 125 Cr.P.C.”
Why PWDV Act?
Also held “It must be understood that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not create any additional right to claim maintenance on the part of the aggrieved person. It only puts the enforcement of existing right of maintenance available to an aggrieved person on fast track.”
Index to DV Judgments is here.
Based on this judgment here, it was held that both proceedings of maintenance under 125 CrPC and PWDV Act can run parallelly and are maintainable.
In this judgment, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that “The Jurisdiction for granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Domestic Violence Act is parallel jurisdiction and if maintenance has been granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. after taking into account the entire material placed before the Court and recording evidence, it is not necessary that another MM under Domestic Violence Act should again adjudicate the issue of maintenance. The law does not warrant that two parallel courts should adjudicate same issue separately. If adjudication has already been done by a Court of MM under Section 125 Cr.P.C., re-adjudication of the issue of maintenance cannot be done by a Court of MM under Domestic Violence Act.”
In this judgment from Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court, Hon’ble sent the case of cunning knife packed out, as it was not established that the knife could not only show existence of live-in-relationship with the non-applicant which is akin to a marriage visible from the fact that applicant and non-applicant are living together as husband and wife but also should show that they are otherwise legally qualified to marry.
This knife was cunning enough to engage in extra-marital affair, as the earlier marriage was not legally terminated and on top of it, tried level-best to fasten paternity of children from first marriage on to paramour, who was married to another woman and had 3 children with her.
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
In this case, the Kerala High Court dismissed husband’s claim for maintenance from his wife holding that maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is to be paid to the husband only when he is able to prove any incapability or handicap.
The Court also observed that in absence of such circumstances as enumerated above, endowing maintenance on the husband would only promote idleness.
The Court also remarked that a husband seeking maintenance from the wife can be treated only as exceptional case as normally he has got the liability or obligation to maintain the wife and vice versa is only exceptional.
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Bad Behavior has blocked 621 access attempts in the last 7 days.
